tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2727871367480602637.post6028249994772510186..comments2023-07-10T10:57:18.522+01:00Comments on The Magistrates' Blog: Phew!Bystander http://www.blogger.com/profile/10211688955428527960noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2727871367480602637.post-19894491637132166122013-04-24T23:24:37.253+01:002013-04-24T23:24:37.253+01:00Anon: "All four primary conditions being met...Anon: "All four primary conditions being met, it's hard to see how you can possibly escape regulation." Firstly, this blog is not a 'commercial activity' by any reasonable definition (at least from how I access it, and pending not adding advertising). Secondly, why ignore the 10 employees and £2 million turnover criteria ? That makes it actually 3 out of 5 conditions, or 3 out of 6 (depending how you count them), I should think. Interestingly, but for the relatively recent expansion into a team, it would be down to 2 out of 5 conditions. So why the pessimistic slavish attitude ? Tony Frostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2727871367480602637.post-48311629640148680162013-04-23T08:37:08.982+01:002013-04-23T08:37:08.982+01:00It's testament to this blog that even though t...It's testament to this blog that even though the powers that be are trying to rid the world of legal eagle bloggers, this one still survives.<br /><br />Most others worth reading such as Inspector Gadget, Tom Reynolds, Coppersblog have all been scattered to the wind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2727871367480602637.post-70338075444659984832013-04-21T17:55:25.231+01:002013-04-21T17:55:25.231+01:00Were one a judicial office holder one would be bou...Were one a judicial office holder one would be bound by the guidance and not be blogging here to advise you not to blog as you are a self proclaimed blogger. Joseph Heller wrote a good book about this dilemma. Catch 22 and all that.rex_imperatornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2727871367480602637.post-57784109626452887722013-04-20T23:02:42.463+01:002013-04-20T23:02:42.463+01:00'I' is that 'us' ????'I' is that 'us' ????Duddershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00692916974114886938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2727871367480602637.post-37988982617122156972013-04-20T12:40:45.893+01:002013-04-20T12:40:45.893+01:00Of course, the catch here is that somebody has to ...Of course, the catch here is that somebody has to form a view as to whether a particular blog "could damage......". On what basis does that somebody make that judgement? There's the rub.Ian Hurdleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17322290011259357106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2727871367480602637.post-86033962876237824902013-04-20T12:34:27.296+01:002013-04-20T12:34:27.296+01:00I have never received a penny from anyone for use ...I have never received a penny from anyone for use of this material, and I have so far resisted the temptation to carry advertising or sponsorship.Bystander https://www.blogger.com/profile/10211688955428527960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2727871367480602637.post-27409804067833062852013-04-20T12:33:06.852+01:002013-04-20T12:33:06.852+01:00The guidance says (inter alia)
"They must a...The guidance says (inter alia) <br /><br />"They must also<br />avoid expressing opinions which, were it to<br />become known that they hold judicial office,<br />could damage public confidence in their<br />own impartiality or in the judiciary in general". <br /><br />If anyone can find a single one of the 2000-plus posts on here that suggests the judiciary to be other than impartial, let me know.Bystander https://www.blogger.com/profile/10211688955428527960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2727871367480602637.post-23661624845806420452013-04-20T10:48:38.681+01:002013-04-20T10:48:38.681+01:00You leave my wife out of this.
The SPJ has a very...You leave my wife out of this.<br /><br />The SPJ has a very good point when he says that Judicial Blogging should not bring the system into disrepute. <br /><br />His mistake is to then issue blanket bans with very little evidence that such blogging has ever occurred. IT's not a very, er, judicial judgement.Judicial Paternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2727871367480602637.post-47980572341835217662013-04-20T00:51:44.755+01:002013-04-20T00:51:44.755+01:00You wouldn't maybe consider that the Senior Pr...You wouldn't maybe consider that the Senior Presiding Judge has a point, would you? Judges (including JPs) shouldn't blog about judicial maters, period. Why do you think you're not subject to that guidance?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2727871367480602637.post-9529796269750786122013-04-20T00:24:46.408+01:002013-04-20T00:24:46.408+01:001. You do "publish ‘news-related’ material&qu...1. You do "publish ‘news-related’ material"<br />2. You do apparently have some commercial interest, as evidenced by the sale of 'subscriptions' through Amazon, and could thus be said to "publish in the course of a business"<br />3. You openly proclaim that the blog is "written by different authors"<br />4. You certainly claim to exercise editorial control and the blog is thus "subject to editorial controls".<br /><br />All four primary conditions being met, it's hard to see how you can possibly escape regulation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com